APPENDIX E

SOME ANACHRONISMS

Can we blame all these out sequences on “archaeologic serendipity” (as does Ashley Montagu¹)? Or would it be more truthful to admit, with Jeffrey Goodman, that “such turnabouts . . . stand in direct opposition to the continuous developmental processes Darwinians espouse”?²

COMPARISON OF EARLY AND LATE HOMINIDS
Where	Earlier Hominid/Remains	Traits Compared to Later Specimen
Australia	Lake Mungo remains	AMH, with smaller faces, jaws, brows than Kow Swamp H. erectus
China Jinniushan hominid	Less archaic skull than later Dali Man
France	Fontéchevade Man	More modern skull, face, 1,470 cc, lighter build than later Neanderthal
Iraq, Shanidar	H. neanderthalensis	Less prognathous than later Neanderthals
Israel	Qafzeh Cave remains	AMH, 20 kyr older than Amud Neanderthal
Java	Sangiran/H. erectus	Much smaller and lighter skulls than Ngandong
Java	Solo Man/H. erectus	Temporal bone more mod than Neanderthal
Kenya	ER 1470/H. rudolfensis	More advanced than H. habilis and H. erectus, bigger brain than younger Au, flatter face, weaker brow than ER 1813
Kenya	ER 3883/H. ergaster	Less robust and more delicate skulls than H. erectus (such as OH9)
Kenya	Kanapoi hominid/Au. anamensis	More modern foot and humerus than later Sterkfontein, Olduvai, and Lucy Au
Kenya	Turkana Boy and ER 3733/ H. ergaster	Less robust than later H. erectus
Spain, Atapuerca	H. antecessor	1.2-myr skull with 1,390 cc larger than 800-kyr skull with 1,000 cc
UK, Swanscombe	Swanscombe Man/H. erectus	More H. sapiens features than later Neanderthal